Background. Reachers are common assistive devices prescribed to help individuals carry out their day-to day activities. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of muscle activity in the arm and forearm when using two commercially available reachers of different lengths. Method. Fifteen women between the ages of 23 and 25 performed a reaching activity that simulated moving a soup can from a cupboard to a counter. Surface electromyography was used to measure the muscle activity in the arm and forearm and to gain an understanding of the relative contributions of different muscles when using the short-handled reach in comparison to the long-handled reacher. Result. The results showed no significant differences between the short and the long reacher conditions for any of the muscles investigated. Practice Implications. The length of a reacher does not necessarily affect the amount of muscle strength required in some muscles and may not be a major factor in the therapist's choice of reacher length.
BargerA., FunkhouserK. B., GravitzT. L., JuskoH. A., LokkeS. L., McCullenL. M. (2000). Potential variables affecting the use of reachers by the elderly. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 17, 51–66.
2.
CarlsonJ. D., & TromblyC. A. (1993). The effect of wrist immobilization on performance of the Jebsen Hand Function Test. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 37, 167–175.
3.
ChenL. P., MannW. C., TomitaM. R., & BurfordT. E. (1998). An evaluation of reachers for use by older persons with disabilities. Assistive Technology, 10, 113–125.
4.
GabrielD.A. (1997). Shoulder and elbow muscle activity in goal-directed arm movements. Experimental Brain Research, 116, 359–366.
5.
GeorgopoulosA. P. (1986). On reaching. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 9, 147–170.
6.
JeannerodM. (1984). The timing of natural prehension movements. Journal of Motor Behavior, 16, 235–254.
7.
MannW. C., HurrenD., & TomitaM. (1995). Assistive devices used by home-based elderly people with arthritis. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 810–820.
8.
MalmstadtH. V., EnkeC. G., & CrouchS. R. (1981). Electronics and Instrumentation for Scientists. Don Mills, ON: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishers.
9.
NapierJ. R. (1956). The prehensile movements of the human hand. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [Br], 38, 902–912.
10.
PerryJ., EasterdayC. S., & AntonelliD. J. (1981). Surface versus intramuscular electrodes for electromyography of superficial and deep muscles. Physical Therapy, 61, 7–15.
11.
RosenbaumD. A., MeulenbroekR. M., & VaughanJ. (1996). Three approaches to the degrees of freedom problem in reaching. In WingA. M., HaggardP. & FlanaganJ. R. (Eds.), Hand and brain: The neurophysiology and psychology of hand movements (pp. 169–185). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
12.
Shumway-CookA., & WoollacottM. H. (1995). Motor control: Theory and applications. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins.
13.
SoderbergG. L., & KnutsonL. M. (2000). A guide for use and interpretation of kinesiologic electromyographic data. Physical Therapy, 80, 485–498.
14.
TromblyC. A., & PodolskiM. V. (2002). In TromblyC. A. & RadomskiM. V. (Eds), Assessing abilities and capacities: Range of motion, strength and endurance (5th ed., pp. 47–132). Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins
15.
WinterD. A. (1990). Biomechanics and motor control of human movement (2nd ed.). Toronto, ON: John Wiley and Sons.
